Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.38 AVERAGE
3.38 AVERAGE
This was harder to get through and was a bit wordy. However, the message struck true and is important for everyone.
informative
reflective
slow-paced
It's a well thought out and a book that makes ou reflect. It would have captured my attention better and I would have retained more information if it wasn't as long winded.
I must admit a certain bias before writing this review: my husband -- a brilliant and deeply logical man -- is a big fan of Peterson, and we have watched quite a few of Peterson's lectures and talks together over the last several years. Conversely, many of my friends are more liberal (as am I) and are strict detractors of Peterson and his message. I borrowed this book from my husband's shelf, on his recommendation, at least in part to be able to argue effectively and with some confidence when either side quotes Peterson without context or with unwarranted authority.
Review:
As a collection of generic advice that one could get from any self-help book out there, this reads easily and obviously. As a psychologist and semi-famous lecturer, Peterson carries a certain amount of clout to back up his perspective. However, the majority of this book felt like listening to a formerly bullied, borderline-incel, recently-divorced, defensive man (who has acquired enough biased education and credentials to grow into a "voice of reason" for those who occupy the same status he held as a younger man) explain how he's doing everything right, can teach you how to do everything right, and is objectively right, because everyone else is wrong and stupid.
"Even more problematic is the insistence logically stemming from this presumption of social corruption that all individual problems, no matter how rare, must be solved by cultural restructuring, no matter how radical. Our society faces the increasing call to deconstruct its stabilizing traditions to include smaller and smaller numbers of people who do not or will not fit into the categories upon which our perceptions are based. This is NOT a good thing. Each person's private trouble cannot be solved by a cultural revolution, because revolutions are destabilizing and dangerous. We have learned to live together and organize our complex societies slowly and incrementally, over vast stretches of time, and we do not understand with sufficient exactitude why what we are doing works. Thus, altering our ways of social being carelessly in the name of some ideological shibboleth (diversity springs to mind) is likely to produce far more trouble than good, given the suffering that even small revolutions generally produce. Was it really a good thing, for example, to so dramatically liberalize the divorce laws in the 1960s? It's not clear to me that the children whose lives were destabilized by the hypothetical freedom this attempt at liberation introduced would say so."
Show me any abused spouse whose children have somehow benefited from the "stability" of their parents' continued marriage, and not been damaged by the psychological trauma of the abuse or become abusers themselves.
Taken at face value, none of the Rules are particularly revolutionary nor impressive. Read more critically, almost every Rule is Christian-centric rhetoric with an underlying thread of misogyny. Many of the Rules rely entirely on "truths" that Peterson does nothing to prove, despite claiming that "the results are in" and misrepresenting anything regarding social justice. I found the undertones of Rule 11 particularly bothersome. He dismisses many concepts of justice, equity, equality, and progress with tautologies that "prove" the idea to be wrong, because this is how it's always been, so it must be true. No studies or actual, unbiased proof is offered.
For example, he provides the example that many female lawyers "bail out" before they turn 30; he claims, "This isn't because the law firms don't want the women to stay around and succeed. There is a chronic shortage of excellent people, regardless of sex, and law firms are desperate to retain them. The women who leave want a job and a life that allows them some time! After law school and articling, and a few first years of work, they develop other interests. This is common knowledge in the big firms, although it is not something people are comfortable articulating in public."
He asserts that "The Word" (of God) and logic and consciousness are inherently male, and women are chaos. He defends this point repeatedly with bible verses and fairy tales. He explains the perspectives of the Columbine shooters, the Newtown shooters, and Hitler as "appointing themselves supreme adjudicators of reality and find it wanting. They are the ultimate critics." He speaks against communism and tyranny, but not with the same force with which he disapproves of women being "sluts," or raising children without a husband. And in Rule 5, he specifically and unapologetically describes what we know to be potentially damaging behavior toward children; in fact, he encourages his readers to follow suit.
"Proper discipline requires effort; indeed, it is virtually synonymous with effort. It is difficult to pay careful attention to children. It is difficult to figure out what is wrong and what is right and why. It is difficult to formulate just and compassionate strategies of discipline and to negotiate with others deeply involved in a child's care. Because of this combination of responsibility and difficulty, any suggestion that all constraints placed on children are damaging can be perversely welcome. Such a notion, once accepted, allows adults who should know better to abandon their duty to serve as agents of inculturation, and pretend that doing so is good for children."
This book was much easier to digest on 1.5 speed audio while driving to work, which is also why I didn't get a chance to record all of the snippets and quotes that rubbed me the wrong way. I must say, I don't wholly disagree with the generalized concepts of the Rules, but I grew increasingly angry with the explanation and extrapolation of the Rules. Save yourself some time; just read the Coda, if any of it at all.
Review:
As a collection of generic advice that one could get from any self-help book out there, this reads easily and obviously. As a psychologist and semi-famous lecturer, Peterson carries a certain amount of clout to back up his perspective. However, the majority of this book felt like listening to a formerly bullied, borderline-incel, recently-divorced, defensive man (who has acquired enough biased education and credentials to grow into a "voice of reason" for those who occupy the same status he held as a younger man) explain how he's doing everything right, can teach you how to do everything right, and is objectively right, because everyone else is wrong and stupid.
"Even more problematic is the insistence logically stemming from this presumption of social corruption that all individual problems, no matter how rare, must be solved by cultural restructuring, no matter how radical. Our society faces the increasing call to deconstruct its stabilizing traditions to include smaller and smaller numbers of people who do not or will not fit into the categories upon which our perceptions are based. This is NOT a good thing. Each person's private trouble cannot be solved by a cultural revolution, because revolutions are destabilizing and dangerous. We have learned to live together and organize our complex societies slowly and incrementally, over vast stretches of time, and we do not understand with sufficient exactitude why what we are doing works. Thus, altering our ways of social being carelessly in the name of some ideological shibboleth (diversity springs to mind) is likely to produce far more trouble than good, given the suffering that even small revolutions generally produce. Was it really a good thing, for example, to so dramatically liberalize the divorce laws in the 1960s? It's not clear to me that the children whose lives were destabilized by the hypothetical freedom this attempt at liberation introduced would say so."
Show me any abused spouse whose children have somehow benefited from the "stability" of their parents' continued marriage, and not been damaged by the psychological trauma of the abuse or become abusers themselves.
Taken at face value, none of the Rules are particularly revolutionary nor impressive. Read more critically, almost every Rule is Christian-centric rhetoric with an underlying thread of misogyny. Many of the Rules rely entirely on "truths" that Peterson does nothing to prove, despite claiming that "the results are in" and misrepresenting anything regarding social justice. I found the undertones of Rule 11 particularly bothersome. He dismisses many concepts of justice, equity, equality, and progress with tautologies that "prove" the idea to be wrong, because this is how it's always been, so it must be true. No studies or actual, unbiased proof is offered.
For example, he provides the example that many female lawyers "bail out" before they turn 30; he claims, "This isn't because the law firms don't want the women to stay around and succeed. There is a chronic shortage of excellent people, regardless of sex, and law firms are desperate to retain them. The women who leave want a job and a life that allows them some time! After law school and articling, and a few first years of work, they develop other interests. This is common knowledge in the big firms, although it is not something people are comfortable articulating in public."
He asserts that "The Word" (of God) and logic and consciousness are inherently male, and women are chaos. He defends this point repeatedly with bible verses and fairy tales. He explains the perspectives of the Columbine shooters, the Newtown shooters, and Hitler as "appointing themselves supreme adjudicators of reality and find it wanting. They are the ultimate critics." He speaks against communism and tyranny, but not with the same force with which he disapproves of women being "sluts," or raising children without a husband. And in Rule 5, he specifically and unapologetically describes what we know to be potentially damaging behavior toward children; in fact, he encourages his readers to follow suit.
"Proper discipline requires effort; indeed, it is virtually synonymous with effort. It is difficult to pay careful attention to children. It is difficult to figure out what is wrong and what is right and why. It is difficult to formulate just and compassionate strategies of discipline and to negotiate with others deeply involved in a child's care. Because of this combination of responsibility and difficulty, any suggestion that all constraints placed on children are damaging can be perversely welcome. Such a notion, once accepted, allows adults who should know better to abandon their duty to serve as agents of inculturation, and pretend that doing so is good for children."
This book was much easier to digest on 1.5 speed audio while driving to work, which is also why I didn't get a chance to record all of the snippets and quotes that rubbed me the wrong way. I must say, I don't wholly disagree with the generalized concepts of the Rules, but I grew increasingly angry with the explanation and extrapolation of the Rules. Save yourself some time; just read the Coda, if any of it at all.
This was just okay in my opinion; it was a little preachy and a little too long for what it needed to be. Still, some good lessons and interesting takeaways netted it with 3 stars.
What a mind splatter of a book! I feel the author’s remains drizzled all over me. His grey matter drips on my blue suit, staining the red tie.
Sorry for the gross image I just painted in your cogs; this reading experience was like no other I have had before.
12 Rules of Life offers readers 12 prescribed learning outcomes. I can only remember the name of two or three without referencing the text. To me, this means this book was complex and also lacking in clarity.
At the 25% mark of the book, I felt it was too much of the author’s thoughts that was not evidenced based. At this point, I felt like I was experiencing a rant.
This could easily have been an article. I have read many books that have earned this descriptor, but what I think is different from this book and the others I have read is that some of the ramblings are insightful. For example, I liked reading random passages about parenthood. I liked learning how to be a better man from this book. When he linked raising a child and manhood to the rule about keeping a kid off a skateboard, I almost burst. There is a lot of meat in this book, it is about life after all. I feel like there is a lot of value here IF AND ONLY IF a reader accepts the organization and ranty style of the book. Otherwise, a reader may become frustrated and chuck the book out a window.
Then I refer to the title, which I think is the whole thesis of the book: 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos. Life isn’t chronological. Heck, life isn’t even logical. We want it to be logical, but as Peterson points out: we don’t even understand ourselves, so how can we understand LIFE? I think that is one justification for Peterson’s robust mind dumping that comes through all over the pages.
I did find myself frustrated by the rant style of this book at first—I was like what the heck is this dude writing about? My defenses started to surface “oh no, am I reading a book that isn’t going to make sense?” “Is this author not going to achieve the purpose he has promised me, which is a lot of rules he edited from a Quora post he made years ago?”Still, after my hesitation, I went along like a good little reader and gave this book a chance.
After I gave it a chance, I started to become comfortable with the author’s approach. I realized that at about the 30% mark, I was ready to be steered in any direction. I was expecting the uncertain. Reading this book has morphed my perception of how a book ought to be and instead invites me to accept both the author’s ideas and claims.
I also realize I don’t like uncertainty, and because this book is so uncertain, it easily flustered me. I want things chronological, nice and orderly. That’s what I expected picking up this book, that was my own bias.
As a Christian, I really appreciated Biblical citations. I loved Petson’s mentioning's of Jesus Christ. Mentioning of God, spirituality, and Jesus was also not expected, another uncertain thing that earned points for me. I really felt the author did a great job linking his faith to life, using Christ as a model. As a Christian though, his insights into the faith were not new IDEAS to me, but rather reinforcing beliefs I already have. There is a difference. This book does lack in the novel category. It does not deliver much new meat to the table.
I don’t think remembering the rules is the key to take away from this book. I think the key take away is very dependent on the reader, because this book is such a splatter. It becomes difficult for me to communicate what I think READERS main takeaways for them would be. What I took away was this:
-Stop taking care of a pet more than yourself. Due to my graduate program, I have not been eating well at all. I am not making it a priority to eat healthy food, because I am constantly reading scholarly articles. This book made me realize I need to start eating better and try to get back into an exercise routine.
-Manly independence—this section was good. I liked his directness about how a man should act. I appreciate his wisdom here.
-How to approach books in a different way (altering my frame as a reader)
-Revealing my own biases in me as a reader through the author’s style (note: this does not relate to the books ideas, but the author’s rant like style).
I truly think there is a something in this book for everyone. If you are not a Christ follower, you may need to sidestep some of the author’s citations and claims to get through this book.
Despite what seems to be a glowing review written above, I realize I did not extrapolate a lot of ideas to apply to my life from this book. I think this book needs a revision for clarity, but I could be wrong! This makes the ranty style of the book a double-edged sword: it made me question my own reading expectations and adjust my frame of mind; it also influences what a reader can extrapolate from this book due to a lack of clarity. When ideas become interfered, it is difficult for readers to understand what the author is sharing. Difficulty in understanding lowers the value of a book. Decrease in value=decrease in star rating.
Though I appreciate the author’s approach, this book is not titled 12 Rants For Life. It does deliver 12 rules in a murky way that demands a reread. I don’t want to reread a book to fully grasp its concepts.
Although this is not article worthy, because Peterson’s rants do have some fruit in them and his approach is interesting, the purpose of writing a non-fiction book is to communicate ideas clearly. For the love of clarity, this book earns 3/5 stars from me.
3/5.
Sorry for the gross image I just painted in your cogs; this reading experience was like no other I have had before.
12 Rules of Life offers readers 12 prescribed learning outcomes. I can only remember the name of two or three without referencing the text. To me, this means this book was complex and also lacking in clarity.
At the 25% mark of the book, I felt it was too much of the author’s thoughts that was not evidenced based. At this point, I felt like I was experiencing a rant.
This could easily have been an article. I have read many books that have earned this descriptor, but what I think is different from this book and the others I have read is that some of the ramblings are insightful. For example, I liked reading random passages about parenthood. I liked learning how to be a better man from this book. When he linked raising a child and manhood to the rule about keeping a kid off a skateboard, I almost burst. There is a lot of meat in this book, it is about life after all. I feel like there is a lot of value here IF AND ONLY IF a reader accepts the organization and ranty style of the book. Otherwise, a reader may become frustrated and chuck the book out a window.
Then I refer to the title, which I think is the whole thesis of the book: 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos. Life isn’t chronological. Heck, life isn’t even logical. We want it to be logical, but as Peterson points out: we don’t even understand ourselves, so how can we understand LIFE? I think that is one justification for Peterson’s robust mind dumping that comes through all over the pages.
I did find myself frustrated by the rant style of this book at first—I was like what the heck is this dude writing about? My defenses started to surface “oh no, am I reading a book that isn’t going to make sense?” “Is this author not going to achieve the purpose he has promised me, which is a lot of rules he edited from a Quora post he made years ago?”Still, after my hesitation, I went along like a good little reader and gave this book a chance.
After I gave it a chance, I started to become comfortable with the author’s approach. I realized that at about the 30% mark, I was ready to be steered in any direction. I was expecting the uncertain. Reading this book has morphed my perception of how a book ought to be and instead invites me to accept both the author’s ideas and claims.
I also realize I don’t like uncertainty, and because this book is so uncertain, it easily flustered me. I want things chronological, nice and orderly. That’s what I expected picking up this book, that was my own bias.
As a Christian, I really appreciated Biblical citations. I loved Petson’s mentioning's of Jesus Christ. Mentioning of God, spirituality, and Jesus was also not expected, another uncertain thing that earned points for me. I really felt the author did a great job linking his faith to life, using Christ as a model. As a Christian though, his insights into the faith were not new IDEAS to me, but rather reinforcing beliefs I already have. There is a difference. This book does lack in the novel category. It does not deliver much new meat to the table.
I don’t think remembering the rules is the key to take away from this book. I think the key take away is very dependent on the reader, because this book is such a splatter. It becomes difficult for me to communicate what I think READERS main takeaways for them would be. What I took away was this:
-Stop taking care of a pet more than yourself. Due to my graduate program, I have not been eating well at all. I am not making it a priority to eat healthy food, because I am constantly reading scholarly articles. This book made me realize I need to start eating better and try to get back into an exercise routine.
-Manly independence—this section was good. I liked his directness about how a man should act. I appreciate his wisdom here.
-How to approach books in a different way (altering my frame as a reader)
-Revealing my own biases in me as a reader through the author’s style (note: this does not relate to the books ideas, but the author’s rant like style).
I truly think there is a something in this book for everyone. If you are not a Christ follower, you may need to sidestep some of the author’s citations and claims to get through this book.
Despite what seems to be a glowing review written above, I realize I did not extrapolate a lot of ideas to apply to my life from this book. I think this book needs a revision for clarity, but I could be wrong! This makes the ranty style of the book a double-edged sword: it made me question my own reading expectations and adjust my frame of mind; it also influences what a reader can extrapolate from this book due to a lack of clarity. When ideas become interfered, it is difficult for readers to understand what the author is sharing. Difficulty in understanding lowers the value of a book. Decrease in value=decrease in star rating.
Though I appreciate the author’s approach, this book is not titled 12 Rants For Life. It does deliver 12 rules in a murky way that demands a reread. I don’t want to reread a book to fully grasp its concepts.
Although this is not article worthy, because Peterson’s rants do have some fruit in them and his approach is interesting, the purpose of writing a non-fiction book is to communicate ideas clearly. For the love of clarity, this book earns 3/5 stars from me.
3/5.
The writing style is a little bit harder to comprehend.
I only made it through 1/4th of this book, couldn't bear any more of it. Thank you, Jordan Peterson, for the lesson on lobsters and their mating techniques, this truly changed my life and enlightened me.
The worst book written on amphetamines since Mein Kampf. The book gym bros read to act smart even though they didn’t understand most of it because they only finished the lobster chapter.
3.5…
Where this book is centred around 12 rather trivial rules, it really is packed with a lot of great ideas. I hate to give it less than a 4/5 rating, but the first half did feel extremely messy, with what I thought to be way too many biblical (and other religious) references for what I was expecting to be a self-help book written on the basis of psychoanalysis (which the second half did feel like it was 5/5). Will definitely come back to some of the chapters in the second half of the book.
Where this book is centred around 12 rather trivial rules, it really is packed with a lot of great ideas. I hate to give it less than a 4/5 rating, but the first half did feel extremely messy, with what I thought to be way too many biblical (and other religious) references for what I was expecting to be a self-help book written on the basis of psychoanalysis (which the second half did feel like it was 5/5). Will definitely come back to some of the chapters in the second half of the book.